San Diego, California.Paul H. O’Neill, Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury in
Washington, D.C., has now defaulted by falling silent in the face of a civil SUBPOENA
issued by the Article
III federal court in Santa Ana, California.

The Clerk of
that court commanded Secretary O’Neill to produce certified copies of all
federal Statutes at Large which create a specific liability for income taxes
imposed by subtitle A
of the Internal Revenue Code.All Acts of Congress are first published in
the Statutes at Large;some are later
codified in the U.S. Code.

The deadline for
complying with the SUBPOENA was midnight on Friday, November 1, 2002 A.D.The SUBPOENA was mailed by this writer on
September 14, 2002 A.D. via Registered
U.S. Mail from the airport Post Office in San Diego, California, with Return Receipt
requested.A courtesy reminder was
mailed on October 15, 2002 A.D.

The SUBPOENA was
issued with detailed directions
for delivery of the certified statutes to a list of several litigants and other
key players in as many federal and State court cases.The federal cases included proceedings now underway at the U.S.
Supreme Court, U.S. Courts of Appeal, and federal district courts.

A Florida State
case was also listed, because it seeks to nullify four bogus Notices of Federal
Tax Lien filed against a retired physician at a County Recorder’s office there.

The focus of the SUBPOENA has arisen from many years
of concerted research and activism to expose the Internal Revenue Code as a
massive fiscal fraud upon the American People.

Specifically, a
key authority from American Jurisprudence, a popular legal encyclopedia,
states that an administrative agency may not create any liability not
sanctioned by the lawmaking authority, especially a liability for a tax.2 Am Jur 2d, page 129.

Later editions
quoted American Jurisprudence in a letter published in Appendix “P” of that
book.Some appendices in “The Federal
Zone” are so large, this detail went mostly unnoticed by the book’s many
readers.Printed copies of “The Federal Zone” are
now sold without appendices, in order to reduce shipping bulk.

As more evidence
accumulated, primarily for purposes of filing affidavits and preparing
testimony for State and federal litigation, this author wrote another document
entitled “31 Questions
and Answers about the Internal Revenue Service,” abbreviated
“31Q&A”.Initial versions of
31Q&A cited the key authority at issue here by reference to “2 Am Jur
2d, page 129.”See the Answer to Question #8 in
31Q&A.

Oddly, 31Q&A
readers who bothered to check, later returned to report this citation had been removed
from American Jurisprudence.

Now the hunt was on to locate the missing original
authority.

This writer
scheduled time to approach a professional reference librarian at the downtown
law library in San Diego, California.Fortunately, he confirmed that American Jurisprudence had been
revised since 1992, and then he succeeded in locating the preceding edition in
locked archives at that law library.

It was a moment
to remember:Mike says, “Here are those
older volumes, Paul.Do you have the
exact citation?”Paul says, “Yes.It’s 2 Am Jur 2d, page
129.”Mike reaches for Volume 2, opens
it to page 129, and hands this page to Paul.“Does this look familiar?” Mike asks.“Let me read it to you,” answers Paul.

After reading the key authority and the
corresponding footnote which cites the case of Commissioner v. Acker,
decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1959, Mike replied, “You have a Supreme
Court authority there.It doesn’t get
any better than that!”

It was a quiet moment of triumph for this writer,
capping 12 full years of concerted effort ‑‑ real blood, sweat and
tears ‑‑ all required to dismantle the
Internal Revenue Service once and for all.

Now that Secretary of the Treasury Paul H. O’Neill
has fallen silent in the face of a proper and lawful SUBPOENA IN
A CIVIL CASE for the missing liability statutes, the wheels of justice are
expected to grind out an unavoidable solution from here on.

Specifically, laws governing the federal courts
authorize parties to compel answers to SUBPOENAs, and to move those
courts for sanctions such as contempt of court.Recently, another member of President George Bush’s cabinet was
held in contempt by a federal district court;thus, ample court precedent exists to hold O’Neill in contempt of court ‑‑
for not answering.Only time will tell
if such contempt proceedings will escalate to the level of a criminal
investigation.

On a much broader scale, the absence of liability
statutes raises the specter of widespread government fraud, going all the way
back to the year 1913.And, there is no
statute of limitations on fraud.

The main problem
which the SUBPOENA
seeks to solve is to confirm, once and for all, the apparent absence of any
federal statutes which create a specific liability for income taxes imposed by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code.

Even though the federal regulations for IRC section 1 do create a
specific liability for federal
citizens and for resident aliens, that section of the IRC does not
create a specific liability for these two classes of people.

The Acker decision by the U.S. Supreme Court
is clear and unequivocal in holding that regulations cannot exceed the
underlying statutory authority.See Commissioner
v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87 (1959).

Examples of liability statutes can be found at IRC
section 1461 for
withholding agents, and section 3403 for federal
employment taxes.

Clearly, until withholding agents remit the taxes
they have withheld, they are made specifically liable for those taxes by
section 1461.Likewise, the Public Salary Tax Act creates
a specific liability for taxes imposed upon the privilege of employment with
the federal government.

The absence of any statutes creating a specific
liability for subtitle
A income taxes means, quite simply, that federal income taxes are totally
and completely voluntary, in the common everyday meaning of that
term.Liability only begins when
Form 1040 is signed.

Further stunning proof that these taxes are truly
voluntary can be found at IRC section 3402(n).Here, Congress has authorized a form called
the “withholding exemption certificate” abbreviated “WEC”.The term “withholding exemption certificate”
occurs a total of seventeen (17) times in that one statute alone.

However, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has
never created an official form for the WEC.

Making matters much worse, it is now becoming
painfully clear that all federal judges are material witnesses to the practice
of concealing the withholding exemption certificate from them, when they
were first hired by the federal judiciary.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist has openly admitted, to a
class of law students at the University of Arizona, that all federal
judges are currently paying taxes on their pay, without exception.

If federal judges are material witnesses to
the subject matter before them, such as federal taxes, the statute at 28 U.S.C. 455
expressly prohibits them from presiding on all such cases.Federal judges are also immune from taxation
on their pay, by constitutional mandate.See Article
III, Section 1, in the U.S. Constitution.

The implications of this conflict of interest are
quite far-reaching, touching as they do literally thousands of court cases
which have been decided by federal judges whose compensations have been
diminished, contrary to the fundamental Law in our Constitution.Again, further details are fully explained
in 31Q&A.

Paul Andrew
Mitchell encourages all Americans to read the on-line version of 31Q&A, and to follow
the numerous working hyperlinks to the mountain of supporting evidence, at
Internet URL:

Certified and embossed copies of 31Q&A are
available from the Supreme Law
Firm for $30.A referral program
also makes it possible for buyers to get their money back, and to make a little
profit too, by referring others to this immensely important document.